Transhumanism: From MK-Ultra to Google

Despite Google’s dictum of “Don’t Be Evil,” the company has suspiciously aligned itself with the grand ambitions of American imperialism, with its executive chairman Eric Schmidt  attending the infamous Bilderberg conference in 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2013. Schmidt  also has a listed membership with the Trilateral Commission.

Far more disturbing, however, is Google participation in what appears to be a totalitarian ambition to create a New World Order under a superconscious computer likened to God. While it may sound like science fiction, Google execs have been advancing the cause of “technological singularity,” and the advent of superhuman intelligence, known as “transhumanism.”

These delusional ambitions have their origin in the CIA-sponsored Cybernetics Group, formed about the Macy Conferences of the 40s and 50s. They were inheritors of the mad scientists of the Frankfurt School, a group of neo-Freudians who manufactured the foundations of American popular culture. Beginning with the 60s counterculture, it fostered the rise of the “personal computer,” which grew out of the CIA”s MK-Ultra program for the proliferation of LSD.

It would be through the aid of powerful psychedelics that the transhumanists would be aided in developing a delusional wonderment with this completely implausible scenario of a conscious computer. Henry Makow provides a revealing account from his meeting with the aging MK-Ultra evangelist, Timothy Leary, in 1990. As Makow reports:

Unfortunately, Leary was fixated on the benefits of what was then called the ‘information superhighway.’ Pioneer of LSD, his pantry table was crammed with bottles of alcohol.

He told me his "vision of God" was depicted in the last scene in William Gibson's book "Neuromancer."

At the end of the world, all the information stored in all the computers will rise up into Cyberspace and mingle together." he said. "That's God."

These aspirations are outgrowths of the Kabbalah, according to which human intellectual history is that of man evolving to become God. From its origins with Isaac Luria in the sixteenth century, the idea has now evolved so that it is proposed that humans will become gods, by achieving the ultimate divine feat, creating intelligent life, in the form of a supercomputer.

The technological singularity, or simply the singularity, is a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence will have progressed to the point of a greater-than-human intelligence, radically changing civilization, and perhaps human nature. Because the capabilities of such an intelligence may be difficult for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is often seen as an occurrence beyond which the future course of human history is unpredictable or even unfathomable.

The use of the term "transhuman" goes back to Jesuit priest, philosopher and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin., the "Catholic Darwin," who through his postulation that man would create the Noosphere, a supreme consciousness, is often regarded as the patron saint of the internet.

Teilhard applied the scientific concept of evolution to the Christian notion of spiritual rapture, believing that technology would bring about the ultimate spiritual evolution of mankind.  According to him, this is the work of Christ. Teilhard's beliefs also reconciled panpsychism, the idea that all matter is intelligent. He developed the Omega Point Theory, which posits that all the organisms on Earth will reach a higher evolutionary point by merging into one "planetized spirit."

However, humans would have to merge their collective intelligence into one super-mind through computer technology, as a necessary first step in the collective evolution of the universe. Teilhard was unapologetic about the eugenic basis of his theory:

So far we have certainly allowed our race to develop at random, and we have given too little thought to the question of what medical and moral factors must replace the crude forces of natural selection should we suppress them. In the course of the coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed.  Eugenics applied to individuals leads to eugenics applied to society.[1]

The first use of the term "singularity" in this context was by mathematician John von Neumann, one of the leaders of the Cybernetics Group. According to Jeffrey Steinberg, in From Cybernetics to Littleton,

For John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener, the core of the Cybernetics Group project was the development of computers, and the prospect of combining high-speed computers with so-called Artificial Intelligence, to literally "program" the human race. Underlying all of these efforts was the unshakable, albeit preposterous conviction, most avidly presented by von Neumann, that there was nothing sacred about the human mind, and that the human brain was a machine, whose functioning could be replicated, and eventually surpassed, by computers.

The biologist and eugenicist Julian Huxley, who was once head of UNESCO and whose brother Aldous was one of the leading architects of MK-Ultra, popularizing the use of psychedelics, is generally regarded as the founder of "transhumanism." Julian also wrote the introduction to Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man. In 1957 he wrote:

IUp till now human life has generally been, as Hobbes described it, ‘nasty, brutish and short’; the great majority of human beings (if they have not already died young) have been afflicted with misery… we can justifiably hold the belief that these lands of possibility exist, and that the present limitations and miserable frustrations of our existence could be in large measure surmounted… The human species can, if it wishes, transcend itself —- not just sporadically, an individual here in one way, an individual there in another way, but in its entirety, as humanity.[2]

Computer scientist Marvin Minsky wrote on relationships between human and artificial intelligence beginning in the 1960s. Over the succeeding decades, this field continued to generate influential thinkers, such as Hans Moravec and Raymond Kurzweil. The coalescence of an identifiable transhumanist movement began in the last decades of the 20th century. In 1966, FM-2030 (formerly F.M. Esfandiary), a futurist who taught “new concepts of the Human” at The New School in New York, began to identify people who adopt technologies, lifestyles and world views transitional to "posthumanity" as "transhuman."

The New School had become affiliated with the Frankfurt School when, following Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, its members left Germany for Geneva before moving to New York in 1935. There, they became affiliated with the University in Exile, which the New School had founded in 1933, with financial contributions from the Rockefeller Foundation, to be a haven for scholars dismissed from teaching positions by the Italian fascists or Nazi Germany.

These ideas were glamorized in Hollywood, such as Kubrik's version of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, the Terminator series, Blade Runner based on LSD-influenced author Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Dick was also inspired by Teilhard de Chardin. Philip K Dick was also associated with Ira Einhorn, known as “The Unicorn,” a prominent figure in the New Age counterculture of the late sixties and seventies. through The Whole Earth Review, a by-product of Stewart Brand's Catalogue, where they initiated discussion of Soviet psychotronics and mind control. Shortly afterwards, Einhorn's girlfriend’s body parts were discovered in a trunk in his Philadelphia apartment, and Einhorn charged with her murder.

Other movies following the transhumanist trends have been the anime classic The Ghost in the Shell, The Matrix, the remake of Robocop, and more recently Her with Joachin Phoenix, and Transcendence, starring Johnny Depp.

Ray Kurzweil, now a director of engineering at Google, cited von Neumann's use of the term “singularity” in a foreword to von Neumann's classic The Computer and the Brain. Kurzweil received the 1999 National Medal of Technology and Innovation, America's highest honor in technology, from President Clinton in a White House ceremony. And in 2002 he was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, established by the U.S. Patent Office. He has received nineteen honorary doctorates, and honors from three U.S. presidents. Kurzweil has been described as a "restless genius" by The Wall Street Journal and "the ultimate thinking machine" by Forbes. PBS included Kurzweil as one of 16 "revolutionaries who made America" along with other inventors of the past two centuries. Inc. magazine ranked him #8 among the "most fascinating" entrepreneurs in the United States and called him “Edison's rightful heir."

Kurzweil has authored seven books, five of which have been national bestsellers. The Age of Spiritual Machines, about artificial intelligence and the future course of humanity, has been translated into 9 languages and was the #1 best-selling book on Amazon in science. Kurzweil believes evolution provides evidence that humans will one day create machines more intelligent than they are. Kurzweil predicts the machines "will appear to have their own free will" and even "spiritual experiences".

Kurzweil's book The Singularity Is Near was a New York Times bestseller, says this will lead to a technological singularity in the year 2045, a point where progress is so rapid it outstrips humans' ability to comprehend it. Once the Singularity has been reached, Kurzweil predicts machine intelligence will be infinitely more powerful than all human intelligence combined. Afterwards, Kurzweil says, intelligence will radiate outward from the planet until it saturates the universe.

Kurzweil's standing as a futurist and transhumanist has led to his involvement in several singularity-themed organizations. Kurzweil is also among the founders of the Singularity Summit, the annual conference of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, in 2006 at Stanford University. SIAI was founded to "help humanity prepare for the moment when machine intelligence exceeded human intelligence."

A leading evangelist for Kurweil’s ideas is Jason Silva, is a television personality and “performance philosopher,” who quotes Teilhard de Chardin to substantiate his pronostications. Silva started out as a presenter on Al Gore’s cable channel, Current TV. In September 2012, he appeared at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, where he presented a speech entitled "We Are The Gods Now."

Silva also promotes the ideas of David Pearce, a leading figure in the Transhumanism movement. Pearce owns a series of websites that feature biographies and information about MK-Ultra personalities like Chilean psychiatrist Claudio Naranjo and Aldous Huxley. In The Hedonistic Imperative, Pearce calls for liberation from our natural biochemistry, what he refers to as the “sick psycho-chemical ghetto bequeathed by our genetic past" and the beginning of an era of “paradise engineering.” With the help of psychedelics, he writes, we´ll be able to chemically enhance our dopaminergic systems so that “undiluted existential happiness will infuse every second of waking and dreaming existence.”[3]

The Atlantic describes Silva as "A Timothy Leary of the Viral Video Age."[4] Silva, who is also described as "a part-time filmmaker and full-time walking, talking TEDTalk," is completely giddy with wild possibilities about transcendence. Continuing the MK-Ultra tradition of drugs and computers, Silva says of himself that he is “fascinated by the relationship between psychedelics and technology…”[5]




[1] Aaron Franz, “The Jesuit Priest who influenced Transhumanism,” The Age of Transitions, Friday May 1, 2009

[2] Huxley, Julian (1957). Transhumanism. Retrieved 2006-02-24

[3] James Vlahos, “Will Drugs Make Us Smarter and Happier?Popular Science, July 31, 2005.

[4]  "A Timothy Leary for the Viral Video Age". The Atlantic. Retrieved 17 August 2012.

[5] Futurology forum,



In the June 1995 issue of Wired, Jennifer Cobb Kreisberg said, "Teilhard saw the Net coming more than half a century before it arrived":

Teilhard imagined a stage of evolution characterized by a complex membrane of information enveloping the globe and fueled by human consciousness. It sounds a little off-the-wall, until you think about the Net, that vast electronic web encircling the Earth, running point to point through a nerve-like constellation of wires.

Seeking life extension technologies and vast singularities of intelligence via the same technologies will not provide the genuine path toward becoming as God. I am not religious as I believe mythos are all just that, mythos based in emotion and no reason. We must avoid scientific empiricism and follow rational idealism to truly grow. The monads/souls need to grow in their own ways following a multi-lifetime quest of developing their awareness and connections to the God-mind. Any path that does not involve natural law is fated to end badly. There is no technological shortcut.

Ira Einhorn murdered and dismembering his girlfriend. It should be noted, too, that Stephen Jay Gould accused Pierre Teilhard de Chardin of conspiring with Charles Darwin to purpetrate the Piltdown Man hoax. Now Gould has also been posthumously of hoaxing the public so this could be a case of the frying pan calling the kettle black.

Poor human beings, enraged by the sentient materiality of their being; forced to live out an unpredictable life within an unpredictable habitat on an uncontrollable, unpredictable planet. For a tiny specie for whom size does matter, this is hell on earth

to touch upon the most interesting themes.

the socio-academic reality is that people who are social theorists and historians like marshal mcluhan, chomsky, and the likes of toynbee, marx, hegel, gibbons , and many many others DONT run in the same intellectual traditions as the neo-technologians.

in fact people who study far and near history dont run in the same circles as the famous english science fiction writers, as well as others like asimov , kurzweil , and other prognosticators because of a good reason and it is this

the historian is preoccupted with the past of man and man's general methods of action , which is rooted in 'man's nature' and the nature of 'society' 'tribalism' and the long historical cycles.

many historians, in which group i include political theorists the likes of who have created modern fields of sociology psychology and economis-------simply disregard prognosticism as actually the domain of 'future tellers' ' fiction writers' and are dismissive.

what is becoming clear is that our technology is becoming, as you put it, kaballistically god like and we are becoming accutely aware of our newfound power and the power we expect to be developed over the marginal technological horizon. it is as if the history of technological development is in fast forward.

it is all too easy to dismiss this trend as simply one that will feed into militarism and consumerism as it always does. in fact, the very complexity of the narrative of technologies effect upon society is being disputed because the stakeholders in society, the most powerful , least powerful and other interested classes---have DISTINCT PERSONAL INTERESTS IN HOW TECHNOLOGIES ARE USED.

so , what we see is in fact a very corrupted and muddied outlook by many intellectuals about what might happen.

too many are myopically focussed on the technology aspect alone ( singularity worshippers). and yet, the stereotyped historians, psychologists , mass communication and marketing experts ( the frudeian bernaysians) , economists and financiers and others are missing the mark on technology because they only see technology through the lenses of their existing outlook.

it is truly difficult to get a good synthesis of where things are more likely to go and where they are not. and of course, there are a lot of truly unpredictable things.

however, to simplify, one way of bissecting outlooks on technology and society is to ask, which outlooks predict 'revolutionary' or 'dsiruptive' outcomes in which areas of technology.

one good example of ludicrous positions is the recent explosion of a small minority of people believing that civilization is about to dramatically collapse because of either a lack of hydrocarbon fuels, or the opposite, catastrophically destructive global warming.

both of these outlooks have been around for at least 2 decades in prevalent popular form. they have also been the basis for much profitteering (selling fear and greed), and yet, it is obvious the world is not 'going to end' for these reasons that apply pressure to socio economic systems withint our set of societies we call civilization in the 21st century.

the dynamics of how things change is of course a more complex paradigm than those outlooks generally predicting the 'end of the world'.

even the most popularly recognized objective threat that could easily destroy hundreds of major cities ( nuclear war) ------itself might only throw our civilizations back by a certain number of years . it really is hard to predict. world war preceded an era of unparraleled economic growth in the history of all of humanity. how could it be that a respectable outlook on the future of man and technology would embrace eschatological apocolyptic predictions. it cannot be this.

similarly, the opposite extreme of the rapture/singularity/messianic technoutopia is equally , if not MORE improbably to occur as a result of disruptive technologies.

so the sophisticated outlook must CONTEXTUALIZE AND PRIORITIZE exiisting trends of technology and research to extend an outlook of which are most likely to have major effects upon civilization.

i myself think of civilization as being comprised of social hierarchies mediating the benefits and the sufferings which must arise as many feedback loops between oligarchs, rich , poor, working class, service sector, government administrators, etc......

when it comes to technology prognosticism, one must FIRST have a very good rooting in the history of technological developments through various civilizations. for example, when one consideres that the chinese ming dynasty were pumping OIL out of the ground for various uses over 500 years ago, it becomes apparent that the basic discovery of a technology or physical principle does not have to yield an technological economic explosion right away. many important factors, both socio-economic, cartel competiion, international competition and plain RANDOMNESS come into play.

when one looks at the various types of people involved in 'predicting' for example the future of industrial electricity production and distribution it becomes apparent that knowingly or not, most people do have an axe to grind. it is very hard to be stoic in one's view so it turns out that whoever WINS by persuading those with power to finance or discourage (action) their 'view' of industrial energy production/consumption -------could dramatically shift outcomes REGARDLESS OF HOW RIGHT THEY ARE OR WRONG THEY ARE.

persuasion and socioeconomics are very very important. the technologists seem generally unable to grasp this on the explicit level, while in fact ,so many of them are implicityly engaged in grinding their axes.

i do like ray kurzweil, but he is an axe grinder selling his university, his courses, his books, his VISION, and he would like the powers that be in various sectors to make his vision happen.

so there is very much an element of self fullfillment in predictionism, which means it is not enough to have the firm understanding of technology and science AS WELL as and understanding of the hisotyr of the world/econnomics/psychology----but one must ALSO be uptodate on contemporary streams of puersuasion ---who is WINNING the battles and wars to get funding.

for this reason it is more than easy to observe than the likes of the BIG TECH firms and cartels such as google, apple, oracle, msft, motorola, boeing, lockheed, etc etc etc.......are very important in predicting the future as they are so large as to be able to squash certain outcomes by discouraging them, and help promote other outcomes by encouraging them and getting the MIC and major financiers behind them.

so good prognosticism is a game of balancing world views ---many world views----with and understanding of what's 'hot' and popular right now'.

it is extremely rare to find someone with a great balance of views. most people , as in most pursuits, are just fly by night observers or pop fans and dilletants. it takes years of a burning desire to self educate in MANY areas to have a reasonable opinion of where things may go, and even then YOU CAN STILL EASILY BE WRONG!. just like the stock market, sometimes in technology things can change REAL fast.
You folks will not succeed in controlling me and mines.

Add new comment